Disney’s A Christmas Carol Movie Review

Written on November 7, 2009 by Marc Eastman in Movies

One of the things you really have to ask yourself at the outset is, “Why do people keep remaking Charles Dickens’ story?” The easy answer is that we need a decent helping of holiday fare at the theaters, but there are other things we could do, and even redo. It may still be a ways off, but we’re quickly gaining on the 200th Anniversary of this story… surely there are other tales we could explore.

While spitting out a movie just to cash in is never a motive that should be overlooked, the people behind the thirty-odd versions of this particular story don’t seem as a general rule to be those sorts of people. On the other hand, Robert Zemeckis is one of the first names that might pop into my mind when working out a list of those capable of churning out nonsense based largely on the idea that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the general populace… Forrest Gump, What Lies Beneath, and Cast Away leap to mind.

But, there are legitimate purposes to the various reincarnations of this story on film. There are different audiences, different times, and different levels of adherence to the source. Some spin off radically from the general tale, and some of them are a lot of fun. However, very few, and I mean very few, tell the actual tale as Dickens wrote it. Fewer still give you any sense of why he wrote it. This one does.

The original story relays a serious dichotomy of effect. It is decidedly creepy, with ghastly descriptions. In 1843, a ghost was a ghost by God, and you didn’t want to know one. On the other side of the coin, when the time was right there was a sense of joy and fun that exploded out at you. A happiness that is perhaps unexplainable (perhaps unexperiencable) without a snowball fight, or flight.

To really tell the story Dickens tried to tell, you have to include both parts. A bit spooky is not really enough, it has to be downright scary. You have to be unnerved, and things have to be tinged with evil, not merely not-all-that-niceness. There as well can’t just be the removal of this as the more fun side, there needs to be the sort of joy that seems silly unless you’re a kid, because that’s really part of the point.

Dickens clearly expressed his attitude toward children in most all of his works, and the case is no different here. Children get it. The poor children look in through the window of the rich and beg for scraps, and are genuinely confused about the situation of the world. As much a tale about the Poor Laws and the displacement caused by the Industrial Revolution as anything else, the poor and especially children are much more a part of this story than usually makes it into film treatment. Scenes of children, past and present, at play, at work, at life, are far more integral to what is being said than the majority of films will let you know.

Sure, all the versions you’ve seen give you the broad scope. See, Scrooge isn’t nice. He only thinks of himself and money. But, the cure is that… well, he needs to be nice, and think of others. But, that’s not really the story. The cure is that he needs to be a child. The rest just follows.

In many ways the story works out to more or less the same result in all its tellings, but it is somehow not the same story. Kids slide down the ice, and it is hard not to wonder why, and they don’t know why either, except to say, “why not?” But, Bob Cratchit has a go. A good man, and filled with the joy of life as best he’s able, even old Bob bows in deference to the one who ‘gets it’ like no other, Tiny Tim.

The Ghost of Christmas Present, with Dickensian precision, says, “Come here. Come here and know me better, man,” as if merely being near him is in fact to know him better, yet he does little but laugh uproariously. In further honor of the source, his correction regarding churches and his own “children” show up in this version, and you’ve likely not met them elsewhere.

Such inclusions are everywhere in Zemeckis’ telling of the story, and the bursts of silly and attention to children attest to a great understanding of the overall project. I should also note that this is the first film I’ve ever seen in 3-D that made actual use of the fact. While a scary horse may stick his face out at you on occasion, the ability is most often used to provide depth and perspective in unique and wonderful ways, rather than to have things flash out at you just because it’s possible.

In the end, Scrooge is not simply “better.” It isn’t that he’s nice now and shares his money. The point of the story isn’t that he now thinks of others, and gave his employee a raise. Those things happen, sure, but the point is that he grabbed onto the back of that hansom and had a ride. It is not that he is good now. That’s a boring story, and doesn’t get retold for more than 150 years. He is joyful now, and that’s why he’s good.

It is curiously little-mentioned that the name of this work is, “A Christmas Carol,” as opposed to A Christmas Story, or any number of other things. A carol, not to put too fine a point on it, is not a story. It’s a song of joy.

Rating: